In the ad, voters who cast their ballots for Obama four years ago speak directly to the camera about why they would not make the same decision in 2012. “He said he was going to cut the deficit in his first term; I’ve seen zero interest in reducing spending,” one man says. “He inherited a bad situation, but he made it worse.”

The ad made an especially strong impression on registered Republicans in the Luntz focus group, but registered Democrats and participants who said that they intended to vote for Obama again also gave it high marks.

Asked what they liked about it, several cited the relatively subdued tone and the effectiveness of featuring “real people” instead of actors or politicians.

“They basically said exactly what I’m thinking,” one of the participants said of those featured in the ad.

“I can almost see myself in that ad,” another added. “It seemed the most real.”

One female voter in the ad praises Obama as a “great person” but in the same breath questions his ability to lead the country.

I don't think it has the same punch as the dead factory backdrop for the woe is me anti-Bane ads.

++

If you read the article, you'll see that the point here is that they're starting to realize that the bullshit ads (like the ones about Bain, or Obama/Romney wants to kill granny) are actually not very effective, while ones that are honest and low-key, like this one, are actually more effective.

c-span has had so many callers in recently who've been in this "i voted for obama in '08, but i won't be duped again" group that you'd almost think they were planted.

same people who will be calling in "i voted for romney/obama in '12, but i won't be duped again"

I don't know about that. I've lived through a dozen presidential elections now, and I have never seen so many people expressing bewilderment and regret over their last vote, or feeling like they were sold a bill of goods that weren't delivered.

I don't think it has the same punch as the dead factory backdrop for the woe is me anti-Bane ads.

++

If you read the article, you'll see that the point here is that they're starting to realize that the bullshit ads (like the ones about Bain, or Obama/Romney wants to kill granny) are actually not very effective, while ones that are honest and low-key, like this one, are actually more effective.

If I have to read an article to tell me that, then clearly the ad isn't effective.

Yes, this is a good ad, better than what Romney has been showing us but not quite the sting of Bain (Bane?) ads._________________Space alien weds two headed Elvis clone.

I don't think it has the same punch as the dead factory backdrop for the woe is me anti-Bane ads.

++

If you read the article, you'll see that the point here is that they're starting to realize that the bullshit ads (like the ones about Bain, or Obama/Romney wants to kill granny) are actually not very effective, while ones that are honest and low-key, like this one, are actually more effective.

If I have to read an article to tell me that, then clearly the ad isn't effective.

Yes, this is a good ad, better than what Romney has been showing us but not quite the sting of Bain (Bane?) ads.

You still miss the point. The "sting" ads (of which Romney has plenty) are not as effective as this type. Also part of that lesson: activists who are strongly aligned with one political camp or the other are not sound judges of what is effective (unless the intent of your ad is to fire up the base).

The attack ads do more to drive the undecided away than to attract them. They backfire with the undecided, particularly if they are informed voters not vulnerable to the egregious slander so typical of such ads.

That ad about Bain is likely to cause uneducated Democrats focused on labor issues (virtually none of whom are "undecided" voters because they have a strong affinity with issues such as labor regulation, economic protectionism, religion, and race) to go, "Yeah, motherfucker! Job-killing motherfuckers!" (ignorant of the fact that they've created a hundred times as many jobs as they have "destroyed"). But that ad is not going to change anybody's mind about whom they going to vote for (the exception possibly being some truly naive people who will believe anything -- those people will vote for whomever their favorite TV channel or their friend tells them to vote for).

If you read the article, you'll see that the point here is that they're starting to realize that the bullshit ads (like the ones about Bain, or Obama/Romney wants to kill granny) are actually not very effective, while ones that are honest and low-key, like this one, are actually more effective.

I think the Romney ad is representative of the "characteristics" of a typical conservative campaign, and designed to appeal to such people, including independents who probably lean right, but consider & sometimes vote for Demokrats.

Conversely, I think the Obama is designed to tug at heartstrings and appeal to the comparable left independent.

I do not think either ad is going to appeal to its effective opposition.

If I wasn't aware of Obama being at least 2x as dishonest as Mitt, I'd be more compelled by the Obama ad._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

My sister-in-law told me that my 16-year-old (and very naive) niece's teacher showed her whole class a recent Michael Moore documentary, and it "blew her mind". She came home practically in tears, full of all kinds of questions about how the evil Bush Administration could have been allowed to exist and why are people allowed to be Republicans.

My sister-in-law told me that my 16-year-old (and very naive) niece's teacher showed her whole class a recent Michael Moore documentary, and it "blew her mind". She came home practically in tears, full of all kinds of questions about how the evil Bush Administration could have been allowed to exist and why are people allowed to be Republicans. :lol:

lol, I believe that is what they refer to as Mission Accomplished._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

My sister-in-law told me that my 16-year-old (and very naive) niece's teacher showed her whole class a recent Michael Moore documentary, and it "blew her mind". She came home practically in tears, full of all kinds of questions about how the evil Bush Administration could have been allowed to exist and why are people allowed to be Republicans.

lol, I believe that is what they refer to as Mission Accomplished.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Do you remember the Foundation Trilogy? Psychology played a central role in that. I read it in high school; I may have to read that again.

You know, I was just checking, and I haven't read any Asimov. I intended to read I, Robot before the movie, but didn't get around to it. I've had Foundation & something else on "some day list" for quite a while. Although, somewhat ironically, I read Silverberg's Kingdoms of the Wall.

I haven't enjoyed much of the SciFi I've read, so I haven't made reading more a priority.

Heinlein's The Puppet Masters was pretty good, but very dated, which made it enough of a distraction that I haven't pursued his other stuff.

Oh, HGTTG. Not a bad start, but really kind of rambled on without much point after the first book. I didn't finish it. I'm pretty sure I made it through 3.

More recently I've read some of Elizabeth Moon's SciFi (after reading her Fantasy series). I've liked it, but it is more 'adventure in space,' so not often what others want in their SciFi. Which is fine, as I read for characters first, then milieu._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

I've tried, at least twice. It is somewhat interesting, but the writing style is awful. One of these days I plan to read at least the first book, but I've got a lot of stuff on the shelf, so that may wait until retirement :D_________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

I've tried, at least twice. It is somewhat interesting, but the writing style is awful. One of these days I plan to read at least the first book, but I've got a lot of stuff on the shelf, so that may wait until retirement

Yeah, okay. If you couldn't stomach Dune, then science fiction is not for you.

Interesting. I wouldn't have discarded a genre based on a writing style. I wouldn't want to read anything in that style._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

My sister-in-law told me that my 16-year-old (and very naive) niece's teacher showed her whole class a recent Michael Moore documentary, and it "blew her mind". She came home practically in tears, full of all kinds of questions about how the evil Bush Administration could have been allowed to exist and why are people allowed to be Republicans.

lol, I believe that is what they refer to as Mission Accomplished.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Do you remember the Foundation Trilogy? Psychology played a central role in that. I read it in high school; I may have to read that again.